Concerning the US elections 2012: - Page 7

Brent · 06-01-2012, 04:27 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck kottke;5162111
The only Bachman I like it Bachman Turner Overdrive! The rest can go Bach.

The right-wingnuts though do spend an awful lot of time demonizing gays, that's such a backwards thing to do. It's as though they need someone to hate, to redirect attention to for all the frustration their adherents sense in life; a boogie-man to be afraid of, or to try and make a monoculture out of a land of diversity.

I'm a libertarian. I agree with Republican fiscal issues. I think the government should be very small. HOWEVER, lately, I have refused to vote Republican on the grounds that a lot of their platform is centered around bigotry: An outdated doctrine that more and more people are dismissing as bullshit. Republicans need a re-assessment. Their social platform is too dated.

HOWEVER, when voting for the federal government, we're choosing a person to run FISCAL issues, not social ones. The federal government's job doesn't encompass that. That's why when dumbasses like Michelle Bachmann come up and say "GUYZ IM GONNA OUTLAW GAY MARRIAGE LOLOLOL" it's stupid because she has no such power. Idiot.

I usually vote Republican for federal office because generally they have a better, more prosperous fiscal setup. And, seeing that it's essentially a fact that by getting that far in politics, you're a douchebag, it doesn't matter because the American government is set up to minimize damage by said bigots and morons.

I always vote Democrat for state government because the way they set up fiscal barriers works well for local state governments, but not international commerce. Plus, social change occurs on a state-by-state basis. That's why X number of states allow gay marriage and Y amount doesn't.

The only exception I'll make to this rule is if a genuinely BAD person is running. Like, I wouldn't vote for Bachmann because she's a fucking bigot. I don't need hateful people representing my country. Most Republicans aren't that bad in the social realm. But Palin/Bachmann/Santorum are.

Ron Paul FTW

MrLick · 06-01-2012, 04:39 AM

Paul is coming in 2nd for NH polls. If he gets second place it'll be hard for the media to keep ignoring him. On Fox they are focusing more on Gengrich who did horrible in Iowa and is polling horrible in New Hampshire, yet the media still pretends it's just him, Romney and Santorum in the lead.

para-para-parrotdies · 06-01-2012, 06:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLick;5162168
Paul is coming in 2nd for NH polls. If he gets second place it'll be hard for the media to keep ignoring him. On Fox they are focusing more on Gengrich who did horrible in Iowa and is polling horrible in New Hampshire, yet the media still pretends it's just him, Romney and Santorum in the lead.

Do you actually think Ron Paul will win the GOP nomination, let alone the general election? Paul does not have a high ceiling of support and many of his views are toxic to the GOP base. Paul's best chance was in Iowa and he couldn't quite pull through. Just take a look at Paul's coalition of voters - it's highly unstable.

It's looking inevitable that Romney will be the GOP nominee. Not only does he have a seemingly insurmountable lead in New Hampshire, PPP polling in South Carolina today shows Romney in the lead by 10 percentage points over both Santorum + Gingrich (in fact, they were the only three candidates to receive support in double digits). If Romney is somehow able to maintain that lead in SC, then the GOP primaries are effectively over.

Finally, Rasmussen polling shows Romney as the only GOP candidate that would be in contention with Obama (it's currently 42-42). None of the other GOP candidates are able to equal Obama's support in a head-to-head matchup.

MrLick · 06-01-2012, 06:35 AM

I saw some polls a few weeks ago showing Paul had the best chance to beat Obama out of all of them. Paul would do quite well with independents and soft Democrats if he got the nomination. And the Independents decide the election. So the polls I saw I think show he's the best one to put against Obama..the only one that oculd take him on. Many Democrats are "quitting" the party and becoming independents. But he won't. You can't go against the media and big money candidates. Paul is leading a movement more than being a candidate and it's gaining a lot of power. Compared to 2008, it's amazing how well he's doing. There is a clear change going on and I hope this is just the start. I understand if it works, it will take a while.

I agree and Romney will get the nomination and he'll lose to Obama. Which is sad because Obama isn't popular with the majority but against Romney he will be. How well Paul is doing is a black eye to the mainstream Republicans and the media.

The codeine I had to take is kicking my ass. I'm going to bed.

Kiame · 06-01-2012, 06:47 AM

Ron Paul is the only chance America has of getting rid of Obama. But watch, the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot once again and nominate someone like Romney.

para-para-parrotdies · 06-01-2012, 07:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiame;5162231
Ron Paul is the only chance America has of getting rid of Obama. But watch, the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot once again and nominate someone like Romney.

What makes you say that? As stated before, Ron Paul has an absolute low ceiling of support. His numbers will nowhere be close to what he received in Iowa, the state he had the best chance of winning. Given the nature of Ron Paul's coalition of voters, he would have absolutely no chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the general election.

Rasmussen polling numbers from January 5th (aka yesterday) show that Romney is the only GOP candidate that would reach Obama's numbers in a head-to-head matchup were the elections to be held today. Just last week, Romney was leading Obama 45% to 39%. He remains the only GOP candidate to lead Obama in more than one survey. Moreover, if we were to somehow assume Ron Paul magically became the GOP nominee, his differentials in battleground states lag behind those of Romney, let alone Obama.

The only interesting question right now is whether or not Romney is able to win South Carolina. If he maintains the 10% lead, then the GOP race is over.

Brent · 06-01-2012, 07:31 AM

^ Well, those polls are essentially just relative to the registered Republicans voting in caucuses and primaries and stuff: Not the general populous.

I think Kiame has a point. One that I don't care to go into because when I get into politics I don't go to sleep.

para-para-parrotdies · 06-01-2012, 07:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baw8cc;5162243
^ Well, those polls are essentially just relative to the registered Republicans voting in caucuses and primaries and stuff: Not the general populous.

Well, the Rasmussen poll I listed is actually reflective of the general populous, not just the registered Republicans. The PPP analysis posted on Jan 4th is even more interesting: they point out that Romney's numbers against Obama are probably being underestimated because of the undecided Republicans. Accounting for these voters would result in a 283-255 Romney win.

Don't get me wrong: it's too early to say Romney will definitely be the GOP nominee or that he'll win against Obama. In fact, Obama is in very good shape for reelection: he has 255 electoral votes locked up in states with at least a 5 point average poll lead in 2011. If he can win just one out of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that puts him over 270.

However, it's simply incorrect to say that Ron Paul represents the best chance of getting rid of Obama. Ron Paul's well-documented low ceiling + fragile coalition would lead to a landslide Obama victory. Of all the GOP candidates, Romney clearly has the best shot of beating Obama.

LoryABjerre · 06-01-2012, 08:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baw8cc;5162157

The only exception I'll make to this rule is if a genuinely BAD person is running. Like, I wouldn't vote for Bachmann because she's a fucking bigot. I don't need hateful people representing my country. Most Republicans aren't that bad in the social realm. But Palin/Bachmann/Santorum are.

Ron Paul FTW

anyway. Elections are rigged anyway and the money always wins.

the_gloaming09 · 06-01-2012, 04:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiame;5162231
Ron Paul is the only chance America has of getting rid of Obama. But watch, the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot once again and nominate someone like Romney.

I agree. He appeals to not only Republicans, but Independents (which ultimately decides the elections), and some Democrats too.

He is by far the candidate I want to see win.

MrLick · 06-01-2012, 05:27 PM

Para-Para- that's one poll. I've others out there of him beating Obama or other polls of him doing quite well with independents. Like Mike said, Independents win the election.

The majority of America is looking for the Anti-Obama for this next election. Romney is an Obama Light and most the others want to start wars or kill gays. If Santorum gets the nomination, he'd never win because the majority don't want another war.

para-para-parrotdies · 06-01-2012, 07:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLick;5162574
Para-Para- that's one poll. I've others out there of him beating Obama or other polls of him doing quite well with independents. Like Mike said, Independents win the election.

The majority of America is looking for the Anti-Obama for this next election. Romney is an Obama Light and most the others want to start wars or kill gays. If Santorum gets the nomination, he'd never win because the majority don't want another war.

It's not exactly independents who win elections - it's more looking at the independents in battleground states and the different demographic breakdowns. For example, Ron Paul could be really popular with independents in California but that state won't go to the GOP anytime soon (unless something drastic happens - like national unemployment hits 15% or something).

Don't get me wrong: it's still too early to even say whether or not Romney will get the nomination. For all I know, there could be some baggage that still hasn't come out in light yet.

But Ron Paul will never ever win the general election because many of his views are toxic to the general GOP electorate (i.e. foreign policy) and he'll never be able to pull enough independents + disaffected Obama supporters to balance that out. I mean, just look at his pull among the different demographic groups: the coalition Paul built in Iowa is highly unstable. In fact, I guarantee his numbers in upcoming primaries will not even come close to his Iowa numbers.

For the record, I do like some of what Ron Paul has to say. But realistically, I know he'll get demolished in a head-to-head matchup against Obama.

chuck kottke · 11-02-2012, 06:42 PM

No matter who wins, the government always gets in.
Amendments are what we need to really work on, otherwise it's a system rigged, and destined for further dysfunction.
Vote Buddy Roemer for President!

Tash · 18-02-2012, 10:25 PM

I stumbled upon this video and I just had to post it here (sorry for the bump).

Santorum Nostalgic for Abortions "in the Shadows," Warns of Euthanasia Increase - YouTube

He is crazy!
It isn't 10% but 2%, people don't wear wristbands that say don't euthanize me and they definitely don't go to hospitals abroad because they are afraid to be euthanized in Dutch hospitals.

chuck kottke · 18-02-2012, 10:39 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
If we could all agree on reforming the process, then some truly wonderful things would happen - it's more a matter of setting down fair ground rules than who we vote in, though that matters too. Representation happens when we level the playing field.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

06-01-2012, 04:27 AM	#91
Brent Rudy Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 12,102 My Mood: Location: St. Louis, MO Gender: Country: Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 204 Thanked 371 Times in 231 Posts	Quote: Originally Posted by chuck kottke;5162111 The only Bachman I like it Bachman Turner Overdrive! The rest can go Bach. The right-wingnuts though do spend an awful lot of time demonizing gays, that's such a backwards thing to do. It's as though they need someone to hate, to redirect attention to for all the frustration their adherents sense in life; a boogie-man to be afraid of, or to try and make a monoculture out of a land of diversity. I'm a libertarian. I agree with Republican fiscal issues. I think the government should be very small. HOWEVER, lately, I have refused to vote Republican on the grounds that a lot of their platform is centered around bigotry: An outdated doctrine that more and more people are dismissing as bullshit. Republicans need a re-assessment. Their social platform is too dated. HOWEVER, when voting for the federal government, we're choosing a person to run FISCAL issues, not social ones. The federal government's job doesn't encompass that. That's why when dumbasses like Michelle Bachmann come up and say "GUYZ IM GONNA OUTLAW GAY MARRIAGE LOLOLOL" it's stupid because she has no such power. Idiot. I usually vote Republican for federal office because generally they have a better, more prosperous fiscal setup. And, seeing that it's essentially a fact that by getting that far in politics, you're a douchebag, it doesn't matter because the American government is set up to minimize damage by said bigots and morons. I always vote Democrat for state government because the way they set up fiscal barriers works well for local state governments, but not international commerce. Plus, social change occurs on a state-by-state basis. That's why X number of states allow gay marriage and Y amount doesn't. The only exception I'll make to this rule is if a genuinely BAD person is running. Like, I wouldn't vote for Bachmann because she's a fucking bigot. I don't need hateful people representing my country. Most Republicans aren't that bad in the social realm. But Palin/Bachmann/Santorum are. Ron Paul FTW __________________ 2-3-2003 - St. Louis, MO - 5-6-2005 - Chicago, IL - 9-17-2005 - St. Louis, MO - 2-26-2006 - Dallas, TX - 3-31-2006 - Chicago, IL - 6-23-2008 - New York City (MSG!) - 11-13-2008 - Kansas City, MO - 7-24-2009 - St. Louis, MO - 8-5-2011 - LOLLAPALOOZA (Chicago, IL) 6-22-2012 - Dallas, TX 7-28-2012 - Chicago, IL Quote: Originally Posted by Wyrd Brent "A name normaly given to the most caring, warm people in the world, these people will make you feel beautiful and always keep you smiling. Sexy 'almost mighty fine' beasts. Its near imposible to not fall in love with a Brent."

06-01-2012, 04:39 AM	#92
MrLick Lemon World Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 26,038 My Mood: Location: Spokane. Gender: Country: Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 65 Thanked 57 Times in 23 Posts	Paul is coming in 2nd for NH polls. If he gets second place it'll be hard for the media to keep ignoring him. On Fox they are focusing more on Gengrich who did horrible in Iowa and is polling horrible in New Hampshire, yet the media still pretends it's just him, Romney and Santorum in the lead. __________________ Even after all this time, the Sun never says to the Earth: "You owe me". Look at what happens with a love like that. It lights the whole sky.

06-01-2012, 06:16 AM	#93
para-para-parrotdies Para-Para-Parrot's Ass Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,370 Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 8 Thanked 152 Times in 104 Posts	Quote: Originally Posted by MrLick;5162168 Paul is coming in 2nd for NH polls. If he gets second place it'll be hard for the media to keep ignoring him. On Fox they are focusing more on Gengrich who did horrible in Iowa and is polling horrible in New Hampshire, yet the media still pretends it's just him, Romney and Santorum in the lead. Do you actually think Ron Paul will win the GOP nomination, let alone the general election? Paul does not have a high ceiling of support and many of his views are toxic to the GOP base. Paul's best chance was in Iowa and he couldn't quite pull through. Just take a look at Paul's coalition of voters - it's highly unstable. It's looking inevitable that Romney will be the GOP nominee. Not only does he have a seemingly insurmountable lead in New Hampshire, PPP polling in South Carolina today shows Romney in the lead by 10 percentage points over both Santorum + Gingrich (in fact, they were the only three candidates to receive support in double digits). If Romney is somehow able to maintain that lead in SC, then the GOP primaries are effectively over. Finally, Rasmussen polling shows Romney as the only GOP candidate that would be in contention with Obama (it's currently 42-42). None of the other GOP candidates are able to equal Obama's support in a head-to-head matchup.

06-01-2012, 06:35 AM	#94
MrLick Lemon World Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 26,038 My Mood: Location: Spokane. Gender: Country: Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 65 Thanked 57 Times in 23 Posts	I saw some polls a few weeks ago showing Paul had the best chance to beat Obama out of all of them. Paul would do quite well with independents and soft Democrats if he got the nomination. And the Independents decide the election. So the polls I saw I think show he's the best one to put against Obama..the only one that oculd take him on. Many Democrats are "quitting" the party and becoming independents. But he won't. You can't go against the media and big money candidates. Paul is leading a movement more than being a candidate and it's gaining a lot of power. Compared to 2008, it's amazing how well he's doing. There is a clear change going on and I hope this is just the start. I understand if it works, it will take a while. I agree and Romney will get the nomination and he'll lose to Obama. Which is sad because Obama isn't popular with the majority but against Romney he will be. How well Paul is doing is a black eye to the mainstream Republicans and the media. The codeine I had to take is kicking my ass. I'm going to bed. __________________ Even after all this time, the Sun never says to the Earth: "You owe me". Look at what happens with a love like that. It lights the whole sky.

06-01-2012, 07:17 AM	#96
para-para-parrotdies Para-Para-Parrot's Ass Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,370 Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 8 Thanked 152 Times in 104 Posts	Quote: Originally Posted by Kiame;5162231 Ron Paul is the only chance America has of getting rid of Obama. But watch, the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot once again and nominate someone like Romney. What makes you say that? As stated before, Ron Paul has an absolute low ceiling of support. His numbers will nowhere be close to what he received in Iowa, the state he had the best chance of winning. Given the nature of Ron Paul's coalition of voters, he would have absolutely no chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the general election. Rasmussen polling numbers from January 5th (aka yesterday) show that Romney is the only GOP candidate that would reach Obama's numbers in a head-to-head matchup were the elections to be held today. Just last week, Romney was leading Obama 45% to 39%. He remains the only GOP candidate to lead Obama in more than one survey. Moreover, if we were to somehow assume Ron Paul magically became the GOP nominee, his differentials in battleground states lag behind those of Romney, let alone Obama. The only interesting question right now is whether or not Romney is able to win South Carolina. If he maintains the 10% lead, then the GOP race is over.

06-01-2012, 06:47 AM	#95
Kiame الى السماء Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,381 Gender: Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 4 Thanked 21 Times in 14 Posts	Ron Paul is the only chance America has of getting rid of Obama. But watch, the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot once again and nominate someone like Romney.

06-01-2012, 07:31 AM	#97
Brent Rudy Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 12,102 My Mood: Location: St. Louis, MO Gender: Country: Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 204 Thanked 371 Times in 231 Posts	^ Well, those polls are essentially just relative to the registered Republicans voting in caucuses and primaries and stuff: Not the general populous. I think Kiame has a point. One that I don't care to go into because when I get into politics I don't go to sleep. __________________ 2-3-2003 - St. Louis, MO - 5-6-2005 - Chicago, IL - 9-17-2005 - St. Louis, MO - 2-26-2006 - Dallas, TX - 3-31-2006 - Chicago, IL - 6-23-2008 - New York City (MSG!) - 11-13-2008 - Kansas City, MO - 7-24-2009 - St. Louis, MO - 8-5-2011 - LOLLAPALOOZA (Chicago, IL) 6-22-2012 - Dallas, TX 7-28-2012 - Chicago, IL Quote: Originally Posted by Wyrd Brent "A name normaly given to the most caring, warm people in the world, these people will make you feel beautiful and always keep you smiling. Sexy 'almost mighty fine' beasts. Its near imposible to not fall in love with a Brent."

06-01-2012, 07:53 AM	#98
para-para-parrotdies Para-Para-Parrot's Ass Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,370 Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 8 Thanked 152 Times in 104 Posts	Quote: Originally Posted by Baw8cc;5162243 ^ Well, those polls are essentially just relative to the registered Republicans voting in caucuses and primaries and stuff: Not the general populous. Well, the Rasmussen poll I listed is actually reflective of the general populous, not just the registered Republicans. The PPP analysis posted on Jan 4th is even more interesting: they point out that Romney's numbers against Obama are probably being underestimated because of the undecided Republicans. Accounting for these voters would result in a 283-255 Romney win. Don't get me wrong: it's too early to say Romney will definitely be the GOP nominee or that he'll win against Obama. In fact, Obama is in very good shape for reelection: he has 255 electoral votes locked up in states with at least a 5 point average poll lead in 2011. If he can win just one out of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that puts him over 270. However, it's simply incorrect to say that Ron Paul represents the best chance of getting rid of Obama. Ron Paul's well-documented low ceiling + fragile coalition would lead to a landslide Obama victory. Of all the GOP candidates, Romney clearly has the best shot of beating Obama.

06-01-2012, 08:47 AM	#99
LoryABjerre Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 6,937 My Mood: Gender: Country: Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 92 Thanked 315 Times in 212 Posts	Quote: Originally Posted by Baw8cc;5162157 The only exception I'll make to this rule is if a genuinely BAD person is running. Like, I wouldn't vote for Bachmann because she's a fucking bigot. I don't need hateful people representing my country. Most Republicans aren't that bad in the social realm. But Palin/Bachmann/Santorum are. Ron Paul FTW anyway. Elections are rigged anyway and the money always wins.

06-01-2012, 04:48 PM	#100
the_gloaming09 Feral Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 11,936 My Mood: Location: NY Gender: Country: Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 40 Thanked 38 Times in 26 Posts	Quote: Originally Posted by Kiame;5162231 Ron Paul is the only chance America has of getting rid of Obama. But watch, the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot once again and nominate someone like Romney. I agree. He appeals to not only Republicans, but Independents (which ultimately decides the elections), and some Democrats too. He is by far the candidate I want to see win. __________________ I'm not yours. You're not mine. That's just fine. Please. Don't. Judge. My Blog Facebook Twitter

06-01-2012, 05:27 PM	#101
MrLick Lemon World Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 26,038 My Mood: Location: Spokane. Gender: Country: Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 65 Thanked 57 Times in 23 Posts	Para-Para- that's one poll. I've others out there of him beating Obama or other polls of him doing quite well with independents. Like Mike said, Independents win the election. The majority of America is looking for the Anti-Obama for this next election. Romney is an Obama Light and most the others want to start wars or kill gays. If Santorum gets the nomination, he'd never win because the majority don't want another war. __________________ Even after all this time, the Sun never says to the Earth: "You owe me". Look at what happens with a love like that. It lights the whole sky.

06-01-2012, 07:00 PM	#102
para-para-parrotdies Para-Para-Parrot's Ass Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,370 Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 8 Thanked 152 Times in 104 Posts	Quote: Originally Posted by MrLick;5162574 Para-Para- that's one poll. I've others out there of him beating Obama or other polls of him doing quite well with independents. Like Mike said, Independents win the election. The majority of America is looking for the Anti-Obama for this next election. Romney is an Obama Light and most the others want to start wars or kill gays. If Santorum gets the nomination, he'd never win because the majority don't want another war. It's not exactly independents who win elections - it's more looking at the independents in battleground states and the different demographic breakdowns. For example, Ron Paul could be really popular with independents in California but that state won't go to the GOP anytime soon (unless something drastic happens - like national unemployment hits 15% or something). Don't get me wrong: it's still too early to even say whether or not Romney will get the nomination. For all I know, there could be some baggage that still hasn't come out in light yet. But Ron Paul will never ever win the general election because many of his views are toxic to the general GOP electorate (i.e. foreign policy) and he'll never be able to pull enough independents + disaffected Obama supporters to balance that out. I mean, just look at his pull among the different demographic groups: the coalition Paul built in Iowa is highly unstable. In fact, I guarantee his numbers in upcoming primaries will not even come close to his Iowa numbers. For the record, I do like some of what Ron Paul has to say. But realistically, I know he'll get demolished in a head-to-head matchup against Obama.

11-02-2012, 06:42 PM	#103
chuck kottke Gearwork for Clocks Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,425 My Mood: Location: Just north of Green Bay - near Lake Michigan's Western Shore Gender: Country: Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 4 Thanked 21 Times in 19 Posts	No matter who wins, the government always gets in. Amendments are what we need to really work on, otherwise it's a system rigged, and destined for further dysfunction. Vote Buddy Roemer for President!

18-02-2012, 10:39 PM	#105
chuck kottke Gearwork for Clocks Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,425 My Mood: Location: Just north of Green Bay - near Lake Michigan's Western Shore Gender: Country: Chat posts: 0 Thanks given: 4 Thanked 21 Times in 19 Posts	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ If we could all agree on reforming the process, then some truly wonderful things would happen - it's more a matter of setting down fair ground rules than who we vote in, though that matters too. Representation happens when we level the playing field. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~